4.7 Article

AN EFFECTIVE PREOPERATIVE THREE-DIMENSIONAL RADIOTHERAPY TARGET VOLUME FOR EXTREMITY SOFT TISSUE SARCOMA AND THE EFFECT OF MARGIN WIDTH ON LOCAL CONTROL

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.06.086

关键词

Soft tissue sarcomas; Extremity; Preoperative radiotherapy; Radiation volume; Local failure

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: There is little information on the appropriate three-dimensional (3D) preoperative radiotherapy (XRT) volume for extremity soft-tissue sarcomas (STS). We retrospectively analyzed the pattern of local failure (LF) to help elucidate optimal field design. Methods and Materials: We analyzed the 56 patients who underwent computed tomography planned XRT for Stage I to III extremity STS between June 2000 and December 2006. Clinical target volume (CTV) included the T1 post gadolinium-defined gross tumor volume with 1- to 1.5-cm radial and 3.5-cm longitudinal margins. Planning target volume expansion was 5 to 7 mm, and >= 95% of dose was delivered to the planning target volume. Preoperative XRT was 44 to 59.4 Gy (median, 50). Postoperative boost of 10 to 20 Gy was given to 12 patients (6 with positive and 6 with close margins). Results: Follow-up ranged from 15 to 76 months (median, 41 months). The 5-year local control, freedom from distant metastasis, disease-free survival, and overall survival were 88.5%, 80.0%, 77.5% and 82.8%, respectively. Three patients (all with positive margin) experienced local failure (LE) as first relapse (2 isolated, 1 with distant failure), and 2 additional patients (all with margin<1 mm) had late LF after distant metastasis. The LFs were within the CTV in 3 patients and within and also extending beyond the CTV in 2 patients. Conclusions: These target volume definitions appear to he appropriate for most patients. No local recurrences were observed with surgical margins >= 1 mm, and it appears that these may be adequate for patients with extremity STS treated with preoperative radiotherapy. (C) 2910 Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据